On 02.02.2016 11:49, Petr Baudis wrote:
you seem to come off as perhaps a little too aggressive in your recent few emails...
If I were not aggressively critical about inappropriate ambiguity, it would continue for further decades. Papers containing mathematical contents must clarify when something whose use or annotation looks mathematical is not a definition / well-defined term but intentionally ambiguous. This clarity is a fundamental of mathematical, informatical or scientific research. Without clarity, progress is delayed. Every professor at university will confirm this to you.
The question was about the practical implementation of an MC simulation, which does *not* require formal definitions of all concepts used in the description, or any proofs. It's just a heuristic, and it can be arbitrarily complicated, making a tradeoff between speed and accuracy.
Fine, provided it is clearly stated that it is an ambiguous heuristic and not an [unambiguous] definition / term. References / links (possibly iterative) hiding ambiguity without declaring it are inappropriate.
-- robert jasiek _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
